Biggest problem with the NBA: Salary limits for individual players. Get rid of this and you'll see Lebron, Kobe, Durant, etc. take up over half a team's salary cap. They also need a hard cap, enough of this luxury tax b******t.

Originally posted by dcsham:
Eh, Spurs, Pistons, Rockets, and Heat are all basically smaller market teams that have won championships, and OKC was close last year. Get good management, draft well, and you can win in this league.

But what is it about the NBA formula for success that makes it a league full of have's and have not's? It basically becomes a superstar driven league. Spurs won the Duncan lottery. OKC won the Durant lottery. The Rockets won the Hakeem lottery. (And even then had Jordan been playing in 94 and 95, they wouldnt be on this list.) The Pistons that won with pure team defense are one of the only exceptions.

Going into each NBA season, there are a small handful of power teams, and everyone knows the winner will come from that group. What are the odds that the team who wins this season is not one of the Heat, Thunder, Lakers, Spurs, or Bulls? Could a small market team with less talent than those teams win it? Possibly, but what are the chances? Far too many fanbases enter a season with no hope. At least in the NFL and MLB you get surprise teams that make a serious playoff run against the odds.

In the NBA, theres a hierarchy of classes each team fits into. If youre a Lakers or Spurs fan? Youre going to be a 1-3 seed most every season. If youre a Nuggets, Jazz, Blazers, etc fan, youre going to be a 4-8 seed every year, and if youre a Warriors. Kings, T-Wolves fan, youre probably going to have to pray for an 8 seed, and thats pushing it.

Obviously these classes can change over time with signings and drafts, but that can take years, and if youre team finally makes it up a level, another has fallen back into the crap pile for the next decade. There is never consistent parity between most every team, which is funny because the NBA lets over 50% of the teams into the playoffs.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I think random events are rewarded in other sports more than they are in basketball, because scoring events in other sports are so much rarer. You can make a "nice play" in football, such as a 15 yard crossing route to Crabtree, but it doesn't result in any points. In basketball...which averages a little more than one point per play...it usually does. Since those scoring events are much rarer in baseball, football, & hockey, a single play can change an entire game. That doesn't really happen in basketball.

If you win 60% of your games in baseball, you're one of the best teams in the league. In basketball, you're a 4th seed. Football is similar, in that the best teams have winning percentages that are comparable to the NBA, but the difference is that their playoffs are single elimination, whereas the NBA is best out of 7. That in and of itself is going to lead to many more upsets in the NFL than the NBA.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the best players in the NBA play 80% of the game, and can touch the ball on every single offensive possession. That's not true of any of the other sports. The best hockey players still play a little less than half of a game, same is true in football, and in MLB they only come up to the plate once every 9 times or pitch once every 5 days. So of course the teams with the best individual can win in the NBA more frequently. They have a chance to impact the game more often.

Aside from the 1970's, every decade in the NBA has been dominated by a couple of teams. That's a function of more scoring frequency, best out of 7 playoff series', and the best players being able to impact the game more than other sports. Personally, I think it's the fairest sport there is. The best team almost always wins. I don't think you can say that about the MLB, NHL, or NFL. The team that gets the hottest at the right time is the one that takes home the title, even if they were only above average for most of the year. The only time I can think of that happening in the NBA was when the Rockets won in '95.

The glaring stat that lead me to create this topic isnt just about the last 33 years. Its the fact that the Lakers and the Celtics have combined for over 50% of ALL the NBA titles in the leagues history. If you think about that for a minute, its hard to believe.

That means that over the course of NBA history, the Lakers/Celtics tandem alone has won the title an average of every other season. Its actually gotten better over time, despite the parity in the last 30+ years being so lacking.

NBA basketball can be a fantastic and exciting sport. Its just a shame that they cant find a way to keep more cities in contention. NBA playoffs can be every bit as fun as the NFL or MLB playoffs, but unless you're a fan of a powerhouse team, your only interest becomes "Did the Heat get knocked out? Did the Lakers get knocked out?" Theres a reason the NBA is cemented into a distant 3rd place among American pro sports fans.

The salary cap in the NBA is a joke. It's not a real cap. Certain teams and markets have a huge advantage. If they had a real hard cap it would work better. Small markets have no chance against big markets or glamour markets with good weather where players want to go. There is no competativeness in the league. It's just stacked toward certain teams and markets. The NBA has 80% of the markets that can never win. Not a good way to run the league. In the NFL more teams can possibly win. Some ownership and markets are bad of course. But it's more fair than the NBA which is a joke. Still fun to watch. But a complete joke on fairness or level playing field for markets.

Originally posted by BobS:
If you are a fan of a crappy team you just set your sights lower. I am a Piston fan, a team that has went up and down like a yoyo the 30+ years I have been following them. In bad years I just hope they win 30 games and don't get embarrassed when they play good teams. No matter who you root for there are always other teams to root against. I am a Laker hater, I get joy out of every season the Lakers don't win a championship.

It seems like the majority of NBA fans end up rooting against the dynasty type teams more than they do for their own team. Thats part of the problem. "Lets go Raptors!" or whatever turns into "Lets go whoever is playing the Heat!" Thats basically what the NBA fan becomes less than halfway into the season, when they figure out their team will once again, be playing for a lottery slot.

That has nothing to do with them being a dynasty believe it or not. My Laker hate started in 1969, I was 8 years old and a big fan, used to listen to all the games, all the way to the end and the post game show. (kept me up sometimes till midnight) My dad took me to a game where they were on the road playing the San Diego Rockets. (now in Houston) Brought a basketball to an early shoot around (hours before game time) got ignored, no Laker would sign my ball. Elvin Hayes (Hall of Famer of the Rockets) signed my ball and told me to root for them. My sorrow turned to hate and I have hated the Lakers ever since. I can hold a grudge with the best of them, over 40 years. I became a Rocket fan, but they moved out of California and then traded my new hero Elvin Hayes away. From 1972-80 I was just a team less Laker hater, until I saw the start of the Bad Boys in Detroit. I guess playing football and boxing I identified with their tough style of defense, been a fan of the Pistons ever since.

Originally posted by Niners99:It seems like the majority of NBA fans end up rooting against the dynasty type teams more than they do for their own team. Thats part of the problem. "Lets go Raptors!" or whatever turns into "Lets go whoever is playing the Heat!" Thats basically what the NBA fan becomes less than halfway into the season, when they figure out their team will once again, be playing for a lottery slot.

I think when someone's team is out of it in the play-offs they are rooting for the under dog or new face to win a first championship more than against the dynasty. I am sure a lot of people were rooting for the Dallas Mavericks in the play-offs against the Lakers and Heat in 2011 because they never won a title. Like in the Super Bowl unless a hated rival is in there, to root against, I will pull for the team with the least amount of rings (unless the 49ers are playing of course).

Originally posted by WookieOftheYear:
Im a huge basketball fan but I have fallen out of love with the NBA and your post is one of the reasons why.I cant even watch a full NBA game anymore
Id rather watch a NCAA Mens game then an NBA game

Originally posted by Niners99:
The glaring stat that lead me to create this topic isnt just about the last 33 years. Its the fact that the Lakers and the Celtics have combined for over 50% of ALL the NBA titles in the leagues history. If you think about that for a minute, its hard to believe.

That means that over the course of NBA history, the Lakers/Celtics tandem alone has won the title an average of every other season. Its actually gotten better over time, despite the parity in the last 30+ years being so lacking.

NBA basketball can be a fantastic and exciting sport. Its just a shame that they cant find a way to keep more cities in contention. NBA playoffs can be every bit as fun as the NFL or MLB playoffs, but unless you're a fan of a powerhouse team, your only interest becomes "Did the Heat get knocked out? Did the Lakers get knocked out?" Theres a reason the NBA is cemented into a distant 3rd place among American pro sports fans.

But what I'm saying is that it's the nature of the sport, not the league. High frequency scoring, higher participation from the best players, and 7 game playoff series lead to fewer random results, or fewer examples of a team squeaking into the playoffs, getting hot, and winning a championship. This happens all the time in MLB & the NFL, but not the NBA.

Is that a good thing? Personally, I like the fact that the best team in the league normally wins the title. I don't like the fact that in the NFL or MLB they often don't.

In terms of popularity, the NBA does just fine internationally, and their money counts too. I don't see how that factors into the discussion. In fact, I think you could argue that the 2nd most popular sport in America is College Football, which is dominated by the SEC every year, yet that doesn't hurt their popularity.

The glaring stat that lead me to create this topic isnt just about the last 33 years. Its the fact that the Lakers and the Celtics have combined for over 50% of ALL the NBA titles in the leagues history. If you think about that for a minute, its hard to believe.

That means that over the course of NBA history, the Lakers/Celtics tandem alone has won the title an average of every other season. Its actually gotten better over time, despite the parity in the last 30+ years being so lacking.

NBA basketball can be a fantastic and exciting sport. Its just a shame that they cant find a way to keep more cities in contention. NBA playoffs can be every bit as fun as the NFL or MLB playoffs, but unless you're a fan of a powerhouse team, your only interest becomes "Did the Heat get knocked out? Did the Lakers get knocked out?" Theres a reason the NBA is cemented into a distant 3rd place among American pro sports fans.

But what I'm saying is that it's the nature of the sport, not the league. High frequency scoring, higher participation from the best players, and 7 game playoff series lead to fewer random results, or fewer examples of a team squeaking into the playoffs, getting hot, and winning a championship. This happens all the time in MLB & the NFL, but not the NBA.

Is that a good thing? Personally, I like the fact that the best team in the league normally wins the title. I don't like the fact that in the NFL or MLB they often don't.

In terms of popularity, the NBA does just fine internationally, and their money counts too. I don't see how that factors into the discussion. In fact, I think you could argue that the 2nd most popular sport in America is College Football, which is dominated by the SEC every year, yet that doesn't hurt their popularity.

The best team always winning is fair, but its not exciting. It means the team that buys the best roster gets the title. It makes the sport dull when you already know who will win. The underdogs being able to catch fire at the right time and make a title charge is what makes the NFL and MLB exciting and unpredictable.

The best rosters having the strong upper hand on everyone else just leaves the other 25-ish fanbases out of hope for most of each season. Its almost TOO fair, and its bad for business league wide.

The real fair way would be a hard cap that put every team on the same level. Then those who built the best rosters with their share would win with that same "best team always wins" factor.

Yes it bothers me. Every year I watch less and less. Most analysts will admit the regular season in the NbA isn't worth watching, but the playoffs are fun. That's because nobody wants to watch the heat kill the wizards, its horrible tv. But the good teams battle in the playoffs. The problem is the NbA created an environment where it will more than likely be the same teams at the end every year. I like the association, but it is not my go to for watching. I enjoy march madness more than the NBA also.

LA makes good points, but doesn't solve the fact that the same teams are good the majority of the time. Just when you draft a great player, by the time you build enough talent to challenge the best teams, your best player hits FA and signs with one of those teams. It's hard to be a fan when you know your team will suck

Originally posted by Niners99:
The best team always winning is fair, but its not exciting. It means the team that buys the best roster gets the title. It makes the sport dull when you already know who will win. The underdogs being able to catch fire at the right time and make a title charge is what makes the NFL and MLB exciting and unpredictable.

The best rosters having the strong upper hand on everyone else just leaves the other 25-ish fanbases out of hope for most of each season. Its almost TOO fair, and its bad for business league wide.

The real fair way would be a hard cap that put every team on the same level. Then those who built the best rosters with their share would win with that same "best team always wins" factor.

I think that's a fair perspective. I don't think a hard cap would matter nearly as much as you may think though. No sport is more "unfair" in this respect than MLB, but the eventual winner is still pretty much a crap shoot. There's much more of a disparity between the financial have's and have nots in MLB than there is in the NBA.

It's the nature of basketball, not the NBA. Even with a hard cap, the team with LeBron can give the ball to him every time, which they can't do in any other sport. Even with a hard cap, you're still gonna have 7 game series. Even with a hard cap, almost every good or bad play is still gonna show up on the scoreboard.

I totally get where you're coming from, I'm just not sure anything can be done about it, because it's the nature of the sport itself.

This site is neither endorsed, nor sponsored by, nor affiliated with San Francisco 49ers or NFL Properties LLC. 49ers is a registered trademark of the San Francisco 49ers LLC. All teams and players mentioned are registered trademarks of the NFL and its respective teams. The use of any team names, words, trademarks, logos or photos have been used for descriptive purposes only. The content and information from other sites is the property of their respective owners. Player and team photos used with permission from USA TODAY Sports Images.